Hearings to examine the future of PFAS cleanup and disposal policy.

Committee on Environment and Public Works

2025-11-19

Source: Congress.gov

Summary

This meeting of the Environment and Public Works Committee addressed the complex challenges associated with PFAS contamination, focusing on its broad impact on infrastructure projects and the urgent need for clear regulatory frameworks and liability solutions [ 00:21:22-00:21:43 ] . Discussions highlighted the difficulties faced by contractors and other entities due to uncertain disposal standards and the potential for extensive liability under CERCLA [ 00:21:59 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. Speakers explored various remediation methods and emphasized the importance of ensuring that polluters bear the costs of cleanup, while also protecting innocent parties .

Themes

Impact on Infrastructure and Contractors

The widespread presence of PFAS, often encountered during routine infrastructure projects like airport expansions or road repairs, poses significant challenges for contractors [ 00:21:40 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. The lack of clear federal standards for testing, disposal, and liability creates an "impossible situation," leading to project delays, increased costs, and sometimes no bids at all [ 00:21:43 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. Landfills frequently refuse PFAS-suspect materials, forcing longer hauls to hazardous waste facilities and driving up expenses for taxpayers . Contractors, who are builders and not polluters, face strict, retroactive, and joint and several liability under CERCLA, even for unknowingly encountering PFAS from decades ago .

Liability and Enforcement Discretion

A central concern was the application of CERCLA's liability framework, which holds entities responsible for cleanup costs regardless of intent or knowledge . While the "polluter pays" principle was broadly supported, there was extensive discussion on how to protect "passive receivers" like contractors, water utilities, farmers, and airports, who incidentally encounter PFAS [ 00:26:29 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. EPA's enforcement discretion policy aims to shield such entities through administrative settlements, but critics argue this guidance is insufficient and can be withdrawn, leaving passive receivers vulnerable to third-party claims [ 00:21:59 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. Congress was urged to provide a permanent statutory solution, similar to the Brownfields amendments, to offer lasting legal certainty and remove the burden of case-by-case settlements [ 00:25:01 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
.

Disposal and Remediation Solutions

The discussion highlighted the need for clear guidance on PFAS disposal and the availability of effective destruction technologies [ 00:23:16 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. High-temperature RCRA-permitted incinerators were identified as a proven and cost-effective method for destroying highly concentrated PFAS, achieving destruction rates over 99.99% . For lower-contaminated materials, proper management in subtitle C and D landfills was suggested . Speakers emphasized that adequate capacity exists for these solutions, but regulatory clarity on thresholds and management approaches is critical for implementation .

Need for Clear Regulatory Guidance and Standards

A persistent call from multiple speakers was for the EPA to issue clear, actionable guidance and federal standards for PFAS management [ 00:23:16 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. Specific requests included federal soil screening levels, concentration limits to distinguish between restricted and unrestricted uses, background levels, and explicit disposal instructions for different types of materials [ 00:23:19 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. This clarity is seen as essential to restore predictability, allow contractors to price liability risks accurately, and prevent unnecessary costs for taxpayers and ratepayers [ 00:22:53 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
.

Tone of the Meeting

The overall tone of the meeting was one of serious concern and urgency regarding the widespread public health and economic impacts of PFAS contamination [ 00:21:32 ] . While there was broad consensus on the danger of PFAS and the necessity of cleanup, significant debate revolved around the effectiveness of current EPA policies and the optimal approach to liability [ 00:21:59 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. Some speakers expressed frustration with the lack of clear federal guidance and the potential for financial burdens to fall disproportionately on innocent parties [ 00:23:00 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. There was a shared desire for bipartisan solutions to minimize future contamination, develop destruction methods, and protect passive receivers [ 00:25:23 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
.

Participants

Transcript

Well, good morning, everybody, and thank you all very much for being here.  I certainly appreciate that.  I'm going to roll right on time simply because we have a lot of other committees that are meeting, and so I appreciate our panelists for being here.  This Congress, the Environment and Public Works Committee, has examined many issues associated with PFAS contamination and remediation, including potential impacts on public health, liability issues, and the EPA's regulatory responses.   I've seen firsthand the impact of PFAS contamination in my home state of West Virginia, and I'm going to continue leading this committee's efforts to protect the health of my constituents, clean up legacy pollution, and ensure the folks responsible for the contamination fund their share of the cleanup costs.  Today we'll discuss another part of the PFAS problem, how PFAS cleanup and disposal directly affects billions of dollars in infrastructure investment.   Project managers, including federal contractors, encounter PFAS contamination when expanding airports, rebuilding roads, bridges, and replacing water systems.  Since there's not a clear framework guiding where contaminated soil should go, what standards apply, or who is liable, it becomes extremely difficult to clean up and remediate these sites once contamination has been identified.  To address the liability concerns after the EPA's designation of PFOA and PFAS,   PFOA, PFOS, as hazardous substances under CERCLA, the agency issued an enforcement discretion policy to protect some passive receivers, including landfills, airports, and farms.  But that guidance does not offer an answer to the practical questions that are halting projects right now.  First, the system between contractors and disposable facilities is breaking down.  Today's projects face a major   impossible situation.  Landfills often will not accept soil unless the soil is tested for PFAS because insurance companies won't provide coverage to the landfill operator.
When contractors do test the soil, there is no established federal standards to measure against.  Insurers often deny coverage if any PFAS is detected, even if PFAS is below varying state standards.   Second, because project managers cannot price this liability risk, potential bids for infrastructure projects just come in with huge contingencies or no bids at all.  This leads to a cost premium that directly affects how critical projects are built and maintained, and those costs are passed through to taxpayers and ratepayers.  The EPA can take steps now to improve how these problems are managed throughout the full life cycle of a construction project.   The agency should issue clear disposal guidance to restore predictability so contractors and landfills know where to dispose of contaminated soil.  Projects need federal soil screening levels that are practical and implementable.  Communities need guidance on managing PFAS in groundwater, stormwater, and treatment systems.  We also need to address the root cause of the contamination.  PFAS hotspots, such as military sites and airports, are a major source of the problem.   Without limiting contamination in these areas, PFAS will keep seeping into water supplies, leaving communities with a forever drinking water problem.  For locations with the highest concentrations of PFAS, we may need disposal options beyond containment.  The good news is that the destruction technology is here, and the EPA has validated that process through thorough testing, showing that PFAS can be destroyed at levels above 99.99%.   That technology is expensive, which is why EPA needs to issue guidance to determine what management approaches are most appropriate.  Liability issues must be addressed.  The EPA should provide predictable pathways for good faith actors using the proven bipartisan model established under the brownfield cleanup process.
When circular liability slowed brownfield cleanups, the EPA used administrative settlements to protect innocent landowners and local governments.   That same authority exists today.  The EPA's April 2024 enforcement memo on PFAS enforcement explicitly contemplates settlements with passive receivers to protect those entities from third-party claims.  These settlements close the liability gap that enforcement discretion leaves open and ensures that polluters pay.  Administrative settlements are a critical interim solution, but case-by-case agreements are too slow   to fully address a nationwide challenge.  Recognizing the limitations of EPA's administrative authority, Congress must provide a permanent statutory solution through the 2002 Brownfields amendments.  The statutory fix removed the burden of case-by-case settlements by providing lasting legal certainty.  This model is a proven framework for good governance   and it is the model we should consider for PFAS.  Congress must come together to enact a bipartisan solution to minimize future PFAS contamination, develop a clear path to destroy PFAS, and protect passive receivers.  I'm committed to working with members on both sides of this aisle, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, and I will now turn to our ranking member, White House, for his opening statement.
Thank you, Chair Capito, for this hearing.  Welcome to all of our witnesses.  PFAS is a public health menace.  These dangerous chemicals have been widely used for decades despite the harm they cause.  Pandora's box has now been opened and these forever chemicals are here to stay in our water, our food chain, and our bodies.  Chemical manufacturers and other polluters will try to pass the responsibility   of managing the risks onto the rest of us.

Sign up for free to see the full transcript

Accounts help us prevent bots from abusing our site. Accounts are free and will allow you to access the full transcript.

Sign up